Subject: Re: [sip-overload] Comment on draft-ietf-soc-overload-control SIP Event package section [was RE: draft minutes IETF83]

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 16:37:34 -0500

This response is for Partha's original email archived at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00789.html.
I am not inline including his original email.  Please see above URL
for the context.

Partha: I am in the process of closing the open issues for
draft-ietf-soc-overload control.  One of these is yours, although
I do not think your comments in the above URL will necessitate
any changes in the draft.  But to close the loop, please see below.

To recap, I had suggested that we remove S9 from
draft-ietf-soc-overload-control [1], but it was felt that S9
provides useful information that should be retained for
archival purposes [2].

The merits and demerits of choosing the Via parameter approach over
SUBS/NOT were looked at a long time ago, and I just want to make
sure that your intent is not to reopen that discussion.  (Personally,
I don't think that is a good use of our time.)  In the instance
where SUBS/NOT adds value to the general SIP overload control
problem, an event package has been defined for that purpose [4].

So, let's be sure that S9 is currently there for archival purposes
only.  Unless you have specific objections to proceeding with S9 in the
draft --- and I don't think you do based on your earlier response in
[3] --- I'd rather continue moving the work ahead.

Please advise.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00773.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00775.html
[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00780.html
[4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-03

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 04:24:07 +0000

Vijay,

I'm fine with your approach.

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 3:08 AM
>To: Ravindran, Parthasarathi
>Cc: Volker Hilt; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Comment on draft-ietf-soc-overload-control SIP Event
>package section [was RE: [sip-overload] draft minutes IETF83]
>
>I am not inline including his original email.  Please see above URL for
>the context.
>
>Partha: I am in the process of closing the open issues for draft-ietf-
>soc-overload control.  One of these is yours, although I do not think
>your comments in the above URL will necessitate any changes in the
>draft.  But to close the loop, please see below.
>
>To recap, I had suggested that we remove S9 from draft-ietf-soc-
>overload-control [1], but it was felt that S9 provides useful
>information that should be retained for archival purposes [2].
>
>SUBS/NOT were looked at a long time ago, and I just want to make sure
>that your intent is not to reopen that discussion.  (Personally, I don't
>think that is a good use of our time.)  In the instance where SUBS/NOT
>adds value to the general SIP overload control problem, an event package
>has been defined for that purpose [4].
>
>So, let's be sure that S9 is currently there for archival purposes only.
>Unless you have specific objections to proceeding with S9 in the draft -
>-- and I don't think you do based on your earlier response in [3] ---
>I'd rather continue moving the work ahead.
>
>Please advise.
>

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 09:40:26 -0500

> I'm fine with your approach.

Partha: Great.  Thank you for getting back expeditiously.

- vijay